Thursday, September 23, 2004

Film Is a Battleground #2 (Spartan, Anchorman, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story)

originally published July 26, 2004

SPARTAN (on DVD)
ANCHORMAN (in theaters)
DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY (in theaters)

SPARTAN (David Mamet, 2004)
*** (A must-see)

By creating a context consisting almost entirely of interconnected allusions to the political scandals of common memory (similar to the disturbingly reasonable culture of fevered paranoia DePalma created for BLOW OUT) within which a soldier embarks upon a relentless, task-specific journey (reminiscent of that which Cliff Robertson undertook in Fuller’s UNDERWORLD U.S.A., a superior precursor to Boorman’s POINT BLANK) culminating with the soldier’s enlightenment--the establishment of a personal, moral, and philosophical motivation for his actions, David Mamet does not just demonstrate his own evolution from writer-director to metteur-en-scene, but also creates a landmark example of a personal, political film smuggled into theaters in the disguise of an action film. It’s equal to the best work of Samuel Fuller and Walter Hill.

Mamet forgoes both sentimentality and the self-congratulatory hype in which exposés traffic. Revealing how things really are excites the naïve on a superficial level. The disingenuous difference between reality and the presentation of reality isn’t newly gained knowledge for Mamet. Furthermore, he understands why the men and women of action, the soldiers, on whom he focuses, have relinquished the responsibility of decision-making to their superiors. The soldiers’ survival depends upon their complete immersion in the moment on their stage of action. He also understands the temptation for the decision-makers, from a safe distance, to use soldiers as tools to achieve both necessary and ignoble ends. This expands upon the central idea of WAG THE DOG; that ultimate power rests in controlling media.

WAG THE DOG received a warmer response from critics than did SPARTAN. Dustin Hoffman, in particular, brought an undercurrent of jokiness to WAG THE DOG that made its themes easier to ignore. SPARTAN, by contrast, is terrifically serious; its portrayal of power relationships impossible to dismiss. Many critics have been forced to quibble over the realism of plot points rather than engage with the film’s politics. (That critics allow that the film has some political content could give Mamet the comfort that he’s being treated better than DePalma.) Mamet’s central point is not that these exact events and the decisions that drive them could or will occur, but that once one achieves a certain amount of power, all decisions are essentially between maintaining and relinquishing that power.

SPARTAN confirms, in a contemporary context, the thesis of James Ellroy’s historical “Underworld U.S.A.” trilogy (American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand, the final volume TBD):

Mass-market nostalgia gets you hopped up for a past that never existed. Hagiography sanctifies shuck-and-jive politicians and reinvents their expedient gestures as moments of great moral weight. Our continuing narrative line is blurred past truth and hindsight. Only a reckless verisimilitude can set that line straight.”

Ellroy then identifies the vehicles of those gestures and quantifies their import:

They were rogue cops and shakedown artists. They were wire-tappers and soldiers of fortune and faggot lounge entertainers. Had one second of their lives deviated off course, American History would not exist as we know it.”

Though he forgoes Ellroy’s epic, scuzzy vision in SPARTAN, Mamet illustrates the above thesis by showing the consequences of such a life deviating off course.

There is a certain perversity inherent in Mamet, for whom plot is inessential, making a genre film, the pleasures of which are grounded in the regular occurrence of plot point. Perhaps, in addition to its other qualities, the film functions as a con on a conceptual level.

ANCHORMAN (Adam McKay, 2004)
** (Worth seeing)

There are comedies and there are gag films. Comedies attempt to make the audience laugh more often through characterization and situation than with jokes and without relying heavily on the strictures of any particular genre. Comedies are hard to make. The few that get over the conceptual hurdles are generally either the work of an exceptional writer-director (Sturges, Brooks, Linklater, Stillman, Anderson/Wilson) or a hopelessly deluded narcissist.

Gag films concern themselves with individual moments. It’s easier to manufacture a tenuous relationship between unrelated gags than to integrate character, situation, and story into a unified whole, so more gag films get made. But they’re not any easier to make well.

These distinctions are not absolute. Many a comedy features a quality gag. Both OLD SCHOOL and the AUSTIN POWERS films seem to have started out as comedies but arrived in theaters as gag films.

Mike Myers has set the contemporary standard for gag films. The AUSTIN POWERS films, despite their obvious shortcomings as drama, demonstrate his exceptional ability to create and commit to a variety of gags (verbal, physical, and filmic).

Will Ferrell doesn’t demonstrate a similar imaginative variety in ANCHORMAN, but he mines his particular creative vein quite effectively. Ferrell’s performance style owes a good bit to Fred Willard (who is on hand here in what would be in more generic circumstances a straight man role). Ron Burgandy is a direct descendent of Jerry Hubbard, Willard’s sidekick character on “Fernwood 2Nite,” a genial, absurd, and instinctual man oblivious to his own intellectual limitations. No one like Willard, simultaneously disconcerting and non-threatening, has appeared until now.

But Willard has not, to my knowledge, initiated a project as Ferrell has done with ANCHORMAN. The most interesting thing about the film’s conception is its lack of a (not especially disturbing) villain based on Lorne Michaels. I can’t speak to all the Sandler, Spade, and Schneider films I avoid, but both AUSTIN POWERS and BRAIN CANDY created a major role for a Michaels manqué. ANCHORMAN’s satire, which is gentle and secondary to its silliness, is not so specific. The absurdity underlying the entire premise exists because of a hyper-masculine work environment filled with ambitious people who accept the established goals and etiquette unquestionably. That’s a condition not limited to the offices of “Saturday Night Live” and Ferrell and McKay’s willingness (presumably encouraged by producer Judd Apatow) to engage, even in a modest fashion, with uncomfortable realities makes their progress as filmmakers something to watch.

DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY (Rawson Marshall Thurber, 2004)
* (Has redeeimg facet)

Rawson Marhsall Thurber might turn into the gag comedy PT Anderson. It seems Thurber, like Anderson, can recognize talented actors without understanding how to make use of their talents. Vince Vaughn, master of uncomfortable verbal aggression, rarely shares a shot with a fellow actor and Stephen Root is stuck playing a one-note reduction of Milton from OFFICE SPACE.

Thurber’s not untalented. His throw-away bits work consistently especially the running gag about championship dodgeball coverage on ESPN8. Pretentious play-by-play man Gary Cole and free-associative color commentator Jason Bateman both elevate material that’s clearly derivative of Bob Uecker’s work in MAJOR LEAGUE and Fred Willard’s maniacal turn in BEST IN SHOW. I someday hope to enjoy something as much as Bateman looks like he enjoyed his performance in this film.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home